The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1887-03-30
Washington County Court.

'
THE court business has occupied the at
tention of the court since our last issue.
The term will probably terminate on
Thursday. The following causes have been
heard by the court and disposed of:
LYcoMING INSURANCE COMPANY rs. NJ.
WRIGHT & SoN.-The defendants in this
case took policy in the plaintiff company,
located in Muncy, Pa, and conducted on
the mutual system. Assessments were
made and sent to the defendants, and, in
view of the insolvency of the company, pay
ment was declined. The company sus-
tanned severe losses from fires at Milton
Pa, and other places, and as those assessed
did not or could not respond to calls made
on them the company failed and receiver
was appointed. The defendants claim that
by the laws of Vermont before any foreign
insurance company can transact business in
this state it must file in the Office of the
secretary of state copies of its bylaws and
charter. In this respect, it was claimed
the company had not complied with the Law, ,
and therefore was not legally doing business
in Vermont, and could not collect the assess
ment. Judgment for plaintiff pro .formd
and cause passed to the supreme court on
exceptions by defendants. Charles w. Por-
ter for the company; Hiram Carleton and
Kemp & Senter for defendants.
ID. l.. FULLER & Son rs. ELMER a. WooD-
wARD.-The plaintiffs are hardware mer-
chants in Montpelier and the defendant is a
alton to Tunbridge. 1t appeared from the
testimony of George Wiley that in April,
1886, he was in the employ of plaintiffs sell
ing tools and farm machinery, and also
sold goods for other firms and companies on
commission. In the performance of this
business he saw the defendant and nego-
tiated with him for the purchase by defend
dant of RiX seeder and harrow combined.
| The defendant expressed some doubts as to
the efficacy of the implement and Wiley told
him to take the machine and try it. There
upon the defendant took the machine to his
farm and made use of it in his spring S
work. 1t ran along until July, and then
| Wiley called on defendant for pay for the
machine amounting to S65. Shortly there
after Wiley received a letter from Wood
ward saying the seeder did not work well
| and that he had returned it to the freight
depot at South Royalton, subject to Wiley s
orders. The latter, in view of the perfected
| sale, declined to receive it, and before any
disposition was made of the machine it was
destroyed by fire. Up to the receipt of the
| letter in question the defendant had made
no complaint about the seeder. The plant
! ifs introduced several witnesses, who tes-
! titled as to statements made by the defend
ant that the machine had done good work.
! The defendants version of the matter was
| that he did not purchase the seeder that
| Wiley had mportuned him to purchase the
| implement and he had declined that finally
| Wiley said to him that he could take the
seeder and use it, as he could not get any
one to make trial of the machine: that il
| Woodward would use it it would advertise
the machine, and that some time in the sum.
mer he wiley would be along and take it
| Woodward introduced, to corroborate his
claim, Ira Mudgett of "Jigger village
In directing judgment for the defendant
the presiding Judge said the court was un.
able to find preponderance of evidence in
favor of the plaintiffs and must therefore
find for the defendant. Gordon and Charles
II. Heath for the plaintiffs; j. ID. Densor
for the defendant.
The following divorce cases have been
heard and bills granted as under:
JOSIE VINCENT as. GEORGE c. VINCENT
The parties resided in Barre and were
married in 1879 Bill granted upon the
ground of intolerable severity. Heath &
Willard for petitioner, to whom is decreef
the care and custody of minor daughter.
GEORGE NJ. SMITH rs. CLARA w. SMITH,
The parties lived in Montpelier and wer,
married in 1877. Bill granted on the grount
of intolerable severity and desertion. S. G
Shurtletf for petitioner.
ALBERT l.. BURNHAM rs. NETTIE BURN
HAM.-The parties resided in Cabot anC
were married in 1881. Bill granted upor
the ground of adultery.
LEWIS W. FARR as. CARRIE +. FARR.-
The parties resided in Waitsfied and wer,
married in 1880. The causes alleged wcr,
defendant had cross-pettion, but it wa,
not relied upon and no defence was made
Case is with the court and bill not ye
granted. G. w Wing for petitioner.
FANNY PIKE as. WALTER T. PIKE.-Th,
petitioner lives in Montpelier and the de
fendant in Warren. The bill was granted
on the ground of desertion. The defendan
deserted his wife at St. Johnsbury few
years ago. Gregory for petitioner
KATE w. BAINE rs. ALBERT l.. BAINE.-
The parties were married in 1873 at Soutl
RoyaltOn and then went West. From th
West Mrs Baine came to visit her old HON,
in Vermont, and the husband went furthe
West. He wrote a few times to his wifi
but never contributed to her support. Bill
granted on the ground of wilful neglect an,
refusal to support. Frank Plumley for pc
titioner, to whom is decreed the custody o
minor son, ten years old.
G. II. JACKSON as. AMY JACKsoN.-Th
parties were married in New York in 1SS
and came to Barre to reside, at which plac
petitioner had livery-stable. After shor
residence there the defendant deserted he
husband and went TO Massachusetts. Bill
granted on the ground of desertion. Boyc
for petitioner.
WALTER S. SMITH rs. FLORA SMITH,
The parties were married in 1884 at Or
ford, n. II. The petitioner then went witt
his wife to live at his fathers in Calais
After a few months the petitioner left hi
wife for the alleged reason OF her imprope
conduct. The cause alleged in the petition
is adultery. The case has been heard bu
the bill is not yet granted. Heath & vii
lard for petitioner; w. A. Lord and j. G
Wing for defendant.
AMY BRAssAw rs. HENRY BRAssAw.-Th
parties lived in Barre and were married il
1870. The bill was granted upon the groun
of intolerable severity. Charles H Heat
for petitioner; j. III. Lucia for defendant.
JULIA NJ. DURANT as. LUTHER l.. DURANT.-
This case has been partially heard and i
left open to hear the defence. 1t appear
that the parties We're married in 1858.
ALoNzo G. WILLIAMS rs. OLIVE NJ. WILL
IAMs.-The parties resided in Roxbury
were married thirteen years ago and wen
to live in Roxbury. In 1885 the defendan
went away with one Michael Flynn an
stayed with Flynn as his wife at the hote
at West Randolph. Bill granted upon tn
ground of adultery. u. S. Stanton 70
petitioner.
Court adjourned from Saturday afternoon
until two o'clock Tuesday afternoon. L
the Farr divorce case Mr.. Wing recalled tn
petitioner, Lewis w, Farr, and he recite
several additional acts of intolerable sc
} verify on the part of his wife.
The case of William c. Church as. Emo
Stiles, an action of breach of covenant, wa
then called up and its trial commenced. o.
a brief statement of the nature of the cas-
the court held that the proper action had no
been brought, decision was given for tn
court on exceptions. Gordon and q. III
Heath for plaintiff; j. Wing and G.. w
Wing for defendant,
The Durant divorce case was then calle,
up by Mr.. Durant, who commenced a state
meut to the court and then asked Mr. Sen